Why are Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews undervalued by physicians as an aid for clinical decision-making?

Ref ID 228
First Author L. Pagliaro
Year Of Publishing 2010
URL https://www.dldjournalonline.com/article/S1590-8658(09)00294-1/pdf
Keywords Cochrane
External validity
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s) Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Inflexible methods to complex questions
Overly stringent inclusion criteria affecting external validity
Unwieldy/ difficult to read
Number of systematic reviews included 87
Summary of Findings The authors concluded that the 87 Cochrane hepato-biliary reviews contained six empty reviews which found no eligible randomised trials and six found one trial, precluding a systematic review; with some empty reviews investigating irrelevant topics. Twenty-one reviews investigated outdated interventions, and thirteen of them were posted ten or more years after the publication of the most recent trial included. Most reviews were too lengthy (median: 40 pages) and their consultation was time-consuming with respect to clinical content. They generally compared two treatments, disregarding other options, and usually did not report any non-randomised (although convincing) evidence of potential use in clinical decision-making.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No